PDA

View Full Version : Evolution?



Tirisilex
06 March 2010, 08:06 PM
I had a guy ask me yesterday if Hindus accept the theory of Evolution? or the Big Bang? I didn't know what to say

devotee
06 March 2010, 08:25 PM
Yes, from Advaita point of view !

OM

Andeliani
26 March 2010, 08:08 PM
I don't see why Hinduism wouldn't. The only religions that don't are those which believe humans are god's special creation, the center of the universe, made in his image, and no other animals are.

Eastern Mind
26 March 2010, 11:25 PM
Vannakkam:

There are many viewpoints on this matter. For example, I accept evolution, but not the Darwinian version.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
27 March 2010, 03:55 AM
I know very few Hindus who are educated in these matters, and who don't believe in evolution and the Big Bang. I'd hope that there aren't many such Hindus, because these theories are on very sound scientific ground.

To be fair to the evolution-denying Abrahamic religions, we Hindus are not without our share of pseudo-science. Indian astrology is very popular among Hindus. My mom is quite superstitious in this regard. And about a decade ago, I remember reading that some Indian universities were actually setting up astrology departments. Sometimes I find it discouraging. But Hindus tend to be reasonable, so I'm hoping that this is just a fad.

smaranam
27 March 2010, 08:48 AM
Namaste

This is purely my personal view.

Evolution as we scientifically understand goes hand in hand with creation as per Vedic scriptures.

Manushya(human) species (and all 84 crore species of Padma PurAN) existed in BhagavAn's database, but at one point it took eons for majority apes to evolve into humans. i.e. the guNa-karma effect was happening in huge masses rather than individually ? So its only a qn of perception over a window of time - earth years versus Kalpa and Yuga.

The probability of an insect turning into a human in the next life or vice-versa is extremely low to the point of nil. Also, purANas mention turning into snakes and back into a DevtA (VidhyAdhar). This could be over a much much bigger window of time i.e. kalpas, yugas, rather than earth years.

Let us not forget that 1 day of Lord BrahmA (the creative wing of BhagavAn) = 1 'Kalpa' of 1000 Chaturyugas [14 manwantaras]

1 Chaturyuga = 4 Yugas (Krit, Treta, Dwapar, Kali Yuga)
and lasts for 4,320 million earth yrs = 4.32 billion earth yrs


BhagavAn/Ishwar has a system which He would rather leave on auto-pilot, and not have to monitor it too much. Even if we look at it as His inherent existential nature. Things "fall in place" by their very nature, nature of Brahman.

sarvam khalvidam Brahman

praNAm

P.S. Astrology may not be as much of a pseudo-science as one may think. It has astonishing accuracy. It is looked at as a Vedic science, but i would say its outcome for laymen falls under the catagory of worldly occurences. Its a matter of interest too.

However, jyotish appearntly gives insight to the jyotishi.

Yajvanji is into it. He may want to enlighten us about it , or already has many times in the jyotish folder.

ScottMalaysia
27 March 2010, 08:57 AM
Some do, some don't. ISKCON in particular rejects evolution - two devotees wrote a book called The Hidden History of the Human Race, which, while disproving evolution, proves or attempts to prove the opposite of what many Christian creationists believe - that humans have been on this earth for much longer than modern science knows about.

I believe in the evolution of the soul - a soul can take a fish's body, a bird's body, a sheep's body, a cat's body, a human's body and eventually attain liberation. However, I don't believe in biological evolution.

The crux of the evolution argument is as follows:

There are two types of evolution:

1. Micro-Evolution. Micro-evolution is changes among the same species or kinds of animals. For example, the peppered moth of England.

2. Macro-Evolution. Marco-evolution is where one kind of animal changes into another.

There is no proof for macro-evolution, so scientists get proof for micro-evolution and use it as "proof" for macro-evolution. They also claim that mutations are what causes evolution, but a mutation is simply a shuffling of genetic information. Mutations cannot create new, different genetic information. You might get a five-legged horse (the genes got shuffled around a bit and it made an extra leg, but the genetic code for 'leg' was already present), but you won't get a winged horse, because the genetic code for 'wings' is not present in horses. No matter how much you shuffle around Romeo and Juliet, you're never going to get a Chinese text, because Chinese uses a different alphabet, and none of the characters in the original text is Chinese.

smaranam
27 March 2010, 09:06 AM
There is no proof for macro-evolution

Namaste

I think this boils down to perception, observation over a window of time.

Is the length of your observation window in years, OR in Kalpa or Yugas.

I do not know the contents of these books at all, but they are written by disciples of Swami PrabhupAd (ISKCON).
http://www.thekrishnastore.com/Detail.bok?no=1785&bar=
http://www.thekrishnastore.com/Detail.bok?no=4609&bar=


praNAm

smaranam
27 March 2010, 02:16 PM
Namaste

Just to clarify my earlier posts ...
I do not know a lot about this, but what i am trying to say is (in #6 and 8) , is it not possible , that humans existed long long ago, but many apes also turned into humans due to common guNa-karma effects considering environmental factors ?

i.e. biological evolution is a result of matter and spirit, karma, environment (Adhibhautik, Adhidaivik, AdhyAtmik).

Probability is also involved. There is absolutely no reason for karma to take such a sharp turn that a dinosaur suddenly be born, when the environment is not suitable for its birth. Certainly Prakrti takes care to see that ?

Karma of apes could have given rise to microscopic changes over years ?

Where modern science falls short is in the length of the observation window.

praNAm

sanjaya
28 March 2010, 01:29 AM
Vannakkam:

There are many viewpoints on this matter. For example, I accept evolution, but not the Darwinian version.

Aum Namasivaya

EM, may I ask what you mean by your acceptance of evolution, but rejection of the Darwinian version? I'm not aware of any evolutionary theory besides Darwinian evolution. Are you referring to Charles Darwin's atheistic beliefs?

upsydownyupsy mv ss
28 March 2010, 03:15 AM
:D Yes, We Hindus do accept the theory of evolution. Especially Shaivaites who say that god(shiva) is always evolving the world and creating new things, unlike the christian belief which says god created the world in 6 days, i disagree, creation is a continuous process and it is constantly manifesting and transforming, which is evolution, this world is ever changing according to the vedic philosophy like the river tending to reach the ocean, creation tends to reach perfection through evolution. Once the perfection is reached, it is destroyed (a.k.a big crunch) and re-creation is done by god (a.k.a the big bang) which is in the vedic, shaivaite, vaishnavaite and smartha philosophies, duh!!

ScottMalaysia
28 March 2010, 03:29 AM
EM, may I ask what you mean by your acceptance of evolution, but rejection of the Darwinian version? I'm not aware of any evolutionary theory besides Darwinian evolution. Are you referring to Charles Darwin's atheistic beliefs?

There is a misconception in the Western world that Darwin was a scientist. The only degree he ever had was a theological one. He came up with the theory as a way to explain how life could have originated without God. However, at that time, people thought cells were very simple structures. They didn't know what we do now - that the cell is extremely complex, almost like a miniature city.

After observing the finches in the Galapagos Islands, Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection - the survival of the fittest. He theorised that those who were most suited to the natural environment would survive and pass their genes on to their descendants, who would also be better suited to survive. Then he said that this theory explained how all living beings got the way they are now - the fittest who adapted to particular environments survived to pass on their genes.

The thing is, Darwin didn't have a shred of evidence for this theory. He had seen microevolution in action and used it as "proof" of macroevolution. He said that the evidence for his theory would be found. Those people who had been influenced by his theory then went out to "find" the evidence. When they found evidence, they interpreted it from the viewpoint of evolution - i.e. they looked at the evidence and "fitted" it into the theory of evolution. For example, when a tooth was found in Nebraska in 1917, it was described in 1922 as being part of a primitive man, whom they called "Nebraska Man". They interpreted the tooth this way because the theory of evolution was firmly implanted in their minds, and they fitted the evidence discovered to the theory. The tooth was later discovered to belong to an extinct species of peccary, an animal with a similar appearence to a pig.

It's like a policeman investigating a murder scene. If the policeman firmly belives that a certain suspect committed the murder, he may then interpret all the evidence at the scene as proof that said suspect was the killer. Refusal to consider other alternatives and possibly ignoring other evidence could very well send the innocent suspect to jail. This actually happened in my hometown - a man spent 13 years in jail for murders he didn't commit because the police believed that he was the murderer and interpreted all the evidence that way. He was later acquitted of all charges.

So if the evolutionists continue approaching the evidence with their "evolution goggles" firmly on, then they'll do exactly the same thing. There is no scientific proof that evolution happened, and there cannot be any (since no-one was there to see it; science must be observable, testable and demonstrable).

However, if (hypothetically) some undoubtable proof for evolution did turn up, Hinduism (and Buddhism) would have the least to lose. Evolution presents a real problem for Christians - they believe that death didn't exist until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. If death was responsible for making Adam and Eve (natural selection) then Christianity would fall apart, because Jesus is the "second Adam" who was obedient to God and gave mankind the salvation they needed after Adam's sin.

Eastern Mind
28 March 2010, 07:46 AM
Vanakkam Scott:

I believe souls migrated here from another planet, and that there is a whole range of complex stuff going on, in our history, and from elsewhere. The ability to realise the self, and see and feel is of God and was uncreated. Darwin and Christian evolution is limited to this planet, and a certain set of time, which doesn't make sense to me. Christians think the whole universe is only 6000 years old for goodness sake.

It seems like every ten years scientists discover new bones that suggest something different happened.

I understand natural selection but there are many other factors such as chemical or radioactive mutation, and advanced interplanetary scientists messing with DNA structure. There are beings without bodies, beings with light ethereal bodies (think "Close encounters, the movie) beings with denser bodies. Lighter bodies could float as jellyfish in water. (No archeologist is going to dig that up.) I'm no expert on Darwin to be sure, but certainly I've seen enough to know its not that simple. We humans are a vain bunch to think we are alone, and that this is it.

So basically that is what I meant. Just that its got to be far more complex that Darwin.

Aum Namasivaya

wcrow
28 March 2010, 10:47 AM
Scott:
Would it be possible to see your evidence that scientists refuse other possiblities or somehow have a vested interest in proving that "macro"evolution is true? "Macro" and "micro" is the same thing, but over different timescales. There really is no reason why there cannot be "macro" evolution if there can be "micro" evolution. Species are human made concepts, and in a lot of cases, especially the "lower life", there is a lot of grey area.

Here is a list of the observed instances of speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


Vanakkam Scott:
I'm no expert on Darwin to be sure, but certainly I've seen enough to know its not that simple. We humans are a vain bunch to think we are alone, and that this is it.

So basically that is what I meant. Just that its got to be far more complex that Darwin.

Aum Namasivaya

I agree. "life as we know it" is exactly that. It is related to what we know. Who knows, if we ever find "life" on other planets it could be something so different to what we know as life that the rules we have observed for our planets version could be completly wrong for that different context. Consciousness, life, sentience - these are all not easy to explain or even define. The neat little boxes we put things in are very arbitrary and subjective, and I think it is important that we remember that we can only go from what we know.

amra
29 March 2010, 05:13 AM
Again see how the vagaries of the english language can cause such a hotchpotch of different views. The word 'evolution' seems to have a different meaning for each person who has commented on this thread. Is evolution biological, spiritual or metaphysical?

I am inclined to agree with the views of Scott. The distant past can never be known fully by humans. Darwins theory is just that, a theory, an approximation of reality, which in my opinion is a hideous mis-representation of reality, calling it an approximation is being kind. Considering the uses darwins theory of 'the survival of the fittest' has been put to it would be infinetly wise to consign it to the dust of history.

ONe of the foundations of the modern capitalist society characterised by greed and exploitation, is darwins theory. Which occured coincidentally at the same time as many christians became disillusioned with religion, this theory, filling a gap, contributed immensly to the dark times we now inhabit.

And please stop this racism against the christian religion, the figure of the creation of the world being 6000 years ago is entirely symbolic, like the yugas are not actual earthly time but are symbolic of cycles of time that pertain to higher orders of reality. i cant stand literalistic idiots who interpret symbolic hierarchic time in terms of gross one dimensional thinking. If hindus can understand the symbolic rich meaningful nature of symbolic time expressed in the shastraas please extend this courtesy to other scriptures which obviously express similiarly symbolic time.

wcrow
29 March 2010, 06:06 AM
Darwins theory is just that, a theory, an approximation of reality,

You are entitled to your own views, of cource, but within the scientific community, a "theory" does not carry the same meaning as it does in normal english.
What most people call a "theory" in science, is called a hypothesis. A premise based on casual observations. A hypothesis becomes a "theory" when it is proved by science, by experiments and observation. Evolution has been "proved" many times over with genetic science, the fossil record and so on - and with the current evidence remains the best theory to explain what we know at the moment. So, until a better "theory" comes up, evolution is scientific fact. In science, nothing can be proved, only disproved. What darwin thought, his qualifications, are irrelevant because the theory goes so far beyond his thought.




ONe of the foundations of the modern capitalist society characterised by greed and exploitation, is darwins theory. Which occured coincidentally at the same time as many christians became disillusioned with religion, this theory, filling a gap, contributed immensly to the dark times we now inhabit.


I beg to disagree. I presume, you, like me, do not agree with capitalism. But it has roots that go far, far further back than Darwin. Evolution, and science, is amoral, not immoral. Evolution does not agree with capitalism any more than nuclear physics does.

It is this phrase "survival of the fittest", it only means the individual best adapted to it's environment, and does not neccessarily mean any kind of competition. Indeed, co-operation and social skills and working togther for the good of all are a major part of humans own evolutionary makeup.


I don't doubt, as do the majority of the scienfic community, that what we know at the moment is a fraction of the truth, and evolution could well be proved wrong in the future. But to deny current theory is to deny the bedrock of current biology, and therefore the theories behind much of our current technology and medicine, especially when you (the general you) don't have a scientific theory that provides an alternate explanation.

amra
29 March 2010, 06:55 AM
Agreed, I am not familiar with the technical vocabulary of scientists. Let me define the way in which I am using the word theory, so that we can work towards a mutual understanding.

A theory is a set of principles that explain a certain class of phenomena. Phenomena are observable aspects or occurences in the objective world. A theory imposes a sense of meaning on the phenomena. Thus, the objective reality that is observed is interpretated through a theory in order to give a meaning to these phenomena. Experimental method is itself a theory that has been the 'mother' of other theories. Objective fact cannot be observed from behind the veil of a theory. Whenever a theory like the universal validity of scientific experimental method, is used, it obscures objectivity by its very existence. A tool has to be recognised as an implement to be used by a higher consciousness not be given consciousness itself. All scientific ttheories are tools imposed on reality in order to intepret it in a certain way. This goes for any structure of thought - religious or whatever. The reality is unknowable but there is a continuum in which these theories operate, let it suffice to say scientific method aims to reduce everything down into matter the mahabhutas of Sankhya philosophy whereas humans should be raised to the level of Purusha the universal soul.

Im in a rush have to go work i try to be more clear later

ScottMalaysia
29 March 2010, 07:13 AM
Scott:
Would it be possible to see your evidence that scientists refuse other possiblities or somehow have a vested interest in proving that "macro"evolution is true? "Macro" and "micro" is the same thing, but over different timescales. There really is no reason why there cannot be "macro" evolution if there can be "micro" evolution. Species are human made concepts, and in a lot of cases, especially the "lower life", there is a lot of grey area.

Here is a list of the observed instances of speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


You can say that macro- and microevolution are the same thing over different timescales, but the fact is that macroevolution has never been observed. The speciation that you refer to is microevolution. Yes, the fruit flies are changing and new species are developing, but they started as flies and are still flies. They did not become birds. No-one has ever seen one species change into another. No-one has seen an animal give birth to a different kind of animal. Macroevolution, therefore, is not science, since it is not observable, testable and demostrable. It is a religious belief that requires faith. Seeing changes amongst the same kind of animals is no proof that one kind of animal turned into another.

All the "ancestors of man" can be classified as either fully ape or fully man (not counting the numerous fakes that evolutionists eagerly accepted as more proof for their theory). One of the "proofs" for evolution that is still used in textbooks is Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos. Haeckel's drawings show that embryos of various creatures, including humans, are very similar in the early stages. However, this is a load of codswallop. Haeckel admitted that he faked the drawings, and his university kicked him out. When compared to real embryo pictures it's obvious they're fake. The reason that they're still in modern school science textbooks is that the evolutionists need all the evidence they have to prove their theory. They don't have any real evidence so they are forced to resort to things already proven false such as Haeckel's drawings (well, the students don't know the drawings are fake, and the evolutionists aren't about to enlighten them).


Scientists do have a vested interest in proving macroevolution true. Without it, their religion of "evolutionism" will fall. This can be seen in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (you can watch it on Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-518637672896741579&ei=vZSwS5CSCpeyrAOygqSWBg&q=expelled#)). This film shows that scientists who doubt evolution are ostracised from the scientific community, "excommunicated" if you will. Teachers who teach students the legitimate problems with the theory of evolution are fired for teaching "religion". Evolution is the sacrosanct religion of scientists and nobody is allowed to question it.

Evolution is necessary for atheism. If there was no evolution theory, then dialogue between a believer and an atheist would look like this:

Atheist: I don't believe that God exists.
Believer: Then how did the world get here? How did we get here?
Atheist: I dunno..................I guess God created us.
Believer: But you said you don't believe in God.
Atheist: (feels stupid)

Atheists need to have an alternate explanation for the creation of the universe and mankind because they don't believe in God. That's why they will go to any lengths to prove evolution. And atheism is a pernicious belief akin to stating that Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa - 'it just got that way by chance'. The earth and even one human cell are more complex than the Mona Lisa, so it is illogical to state that they wre not designed. Srila Prabhupada wrote in his Krishna book that "an atheistic person cannot be firm in his word of honor".

Eastern Mind
29 March 2010, 07:38 AM
And please stop this racism against the christian religion, the figure of the creation of the world being 6000 years ago is entirely symbolic, like the yugas are not actual earthly time but are symbolic of cycles of time that pertain to higher orders of reality.

Vannakkam amra: If you ask a fundamentalist Christian about this, he will tell you directly that the meaning is literal. He would say you are insulting his faith by saying its symbolic. Of course there are many Christians who don't take it literally, and see it as symbolic. I fail to see how race plays a factor, as fundamentalist Christianity exists throughout races. Thy talking to a Malayalam Christian (not all) for example.

Aum Namasivaya

wcrow
29 March 2010, 08:47 AM
You can say that macro- and microevolution are the same thing over different timescales, but the fact is that macroevolution has never been observed. The speciation that you refer to is microevolution. Yes, the fruit flies are changing and new species are developing, but they started as flies and are still flies. They did not become birds. No-one has ever seen one species change into another.

They have and I have just showed you. Turning from one class into another, well that is a different thing entirely. As I said, taxinomical orders are very arbitrary and in "lower life" things are much closer than you think. It isn't as simple as the difference between a bird and a fish. But these things are different species, which is macro-evolution.

Look, I appreciate that you are trying to fight agains atheism, but evolution is different to cosmology - the origins of the universe, which we cannot with our current technology objectivly observe. Evolution does not mean got didn't create us. God is far more complex than to just blindly create a perfect complex world like christians would have us believe.

And you saying that it is like someone denying someone painted the mona lisa shows your ignorance of the theory - evolution is far from the whilwind in a junkyard that some would say it is, creating something complex from nothing.

Also, your faked pictures thing. Fine - people do stuff like that. But if you think evolution can be blown away by something like that, that it is held up by lies and so on, then you are wrong. There is far, far more that faked pictures "proving" evolution. I wasn't even aware of that "proof", anyway.

The main ones being:

Fossil record,
Modern genetics and biology.
Observed speciation

try and disprove those if you like.


Evolution is the opposite of random chance. Yes, chance plays a part, but so what? Evolution works the way it does because of certain laws - not chance. The way things interact in the universe, not chance, is at the crux of evolution. Make of this what you will, but couldn't you say this is god at work?

"Atheist: I don't believe that God exists.
Believer: Then how did the world get here? How did we get here?
Atheist: I dunno..................I guess God created us.
Believer: But you said you don't believe in God.
Atheist: (feels stupid)"

No atheist that I ever knew has ever even hinted at what you have just said. I was an atheist once... but no. That is just misrepresentation. Trying to work agains atheism is fine, but please don't dishonour them with misrepresenting thier POV.

I am not going to argue my point any longer. My advice is to read up on the subject, at least allow yourself to challenge the commenly held misconceptions you have about evolution. If you still disagree, then fine. But science will carry on working, providing you with technology and medicine whether or not you agree with it's fundamental theories or not.

sanjaya
29 March 2010, 10:30 AM
And please stop this racism against the christian religion, the figure of the creation of the world being 6000 years ago is entirely symbolic, like the yugas are not actual earthly time but are symbolic of cycles of time that pertain to higher orders of reality. i cant stand literalistic idiots who interpret symbolic hierarchic time in terms of gross one dimensional thinking. If hindus can understand the symbolic rich meaningful nature of symbolic time expressed in the shastraas please extend this courtesy to other scriptures which obviously express similiarly symbolic time.

Amra, this isn't an issue of race. In fact fundamentalists have made inroads in India by converting some Indians to fundamentalist Christianity, and this is what I hope to stop via honest critique of Christian doctrines. It's true that most fundamentalist Christians are white Americans, but it's their beliefs and not their race that we are criticizing.

As for the issue of literal interpretation of religious texts, most Christians do not interpret the Bible literally. Some fundamentalists do. Yes, they really believe that the universe is 6,000 years old and that everything was specially created by God without any sort of astrophysical or biological evolution. If you don't believe me, Google "Answers in Genesis" and read their web page for about ten minutes. AiG is a laughingstock in science, but they have many followers here in America. If you can't stand literalistic idiots, I have to warn you that AiG might give you hypertension.

wcrow
29 March 2010, 11:09 AM
Just a second, I'm pretty sure the 6000 date isn't in the bible, but came from catholic theological sources. I could be wrong though.

sanjaya
29 March 2010, 03:14 PM
Just a second, I'm pretty sure the 6000 date isn't in the bible, but came from catholic theological sources. I could be wrong though.

Well, the Bible doesn't explicitly say "the earth is 6000 years old" (though I guess at the time it would have said 2500 years). You can get the 6000 year figure by adding the ages of the various people listed in the geneologies, and then use the fact that Abraham is supposed to have lived around 2100 BC (I guess this is an estimate based on cultural clues in the book of Genesis) to get the 6000 year date. This isn't just some date based on the works of Catholic theologians. In fact I think the age of the earth was first computed by an Anglican theologian a few hundred years ago.

The smarter young earth believers - to the extent that such a person can be classified as intelligent - will admit that the geneologies are a bit fuzzy, and can't be used to arrive at an exact date of creation. However, even if one allows for the geneologies to be approximations, a reasonable reading of the Genesis text would suggest that the universe is between 10,000 and 15,000 years old. This is very, very far off the scientifically deduced age of 13.7 billions years, as well as the geologic estimate for the age of the earth as 4.1 billion years.

At least Hindu Scriptures get the age of the universe correct to within an order of magnitude. Granted they don't correctly state the age of the human race, since they suggest that humans have existed for as long as there has been a universe (so I'm told, correct me if I'm wrong). But we don't take our Scriptures literally, so this isn't much of a problem.

amra
29 March 2010, 06:38 PM
'Indian astrology is very popular among Hindus. My mom is quite superstitious in this regard. And about a decade ago, I remember reading that some Indian universities were actually setting up astrology departments. Sometimes I find it discouraging. But Hindus tend to be reasonable, so I'm hoping that this is just a fad.'

Sanjaya I am going to bully you, i hope you do not mind too much. Please tell what what kind of Hindu you are? Rejecting astrology as psuedo-science is insulting. Jyotish is known as the eye of the Veda and has been one of the pillars of Indian civilization for millenia. It is a grand edifice of thought constructed by generations for the benefit of posterity. I find it saddening that modern Hindus like yourself reject your heritage, in all but words, and prefer to follow scientific rationalism. Which is founded on absolutely no tradition and therefore has no validity as a means of self-progress and development. In fact the purpose of the 'theory' of scientific rationalism is precisly the opposite to Vedic theory. Vedic theory utilises principles of reality in order for self development, to make a Man a god. Modern science is a theory that reduces man to matter it has no conception in its framework that even considers more subtle substances such as thought or mind. Evolution when seen from a viewpoint that ignores Being and Consciousness becomes purely physical. Cosmology becomes about finding the physical origins of the universe man becomes a machine reliant on technology to furnish him with proofs. He himself becomes the machines he creates distancing himself further and further from the centre of his being, his soul being extracted and sucked into non-being by the inhuman machines he creates.

sanjaya
30 March 2010, 01:38 AM
Sanjaya I am going to bully you, i hope you do not mind too much.

Not at all, let the bullying commence. With God's grace I'll take it in a good spirit, as I'm sure it's intended.


Please tell what what kind of Hindu you are?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Being Indian and Hindu go hand in hand. Though there are certain beliefs that characterize Hinduism, I define myself as a Hindu by virtue of my being born a Hindu, not by virtue of my beliefs. As I'm sure you're aware, Hinduism accomodates even atheistic beliefs. While I certainly don't subscribe to any atheistic views, surely a broad-minded religion such as Hinduism can accomodate someone like myself. For what it's worth, I believe in God, the Vedas, our other Scriptures, and the value of worshiping in temples. But I would call myself a Hindu even if I believed in none of these. I can't cease to be a Hindu anymore than I can change my genetic makeup.


Rejecting astrology as psuedo-science is insulting. Jyotish is known as the eye of the Veda and has been one of the pillars of Indian civilization for millenia. It is a grand edifice of thought constructed by generations for the benefit of posterity.

I hope you aren't insulted by my calling astrology pseudo-science, since I don't mean to be insulting. However, I can't apologize for what I've said, especially as a professional astronomer. When assessing a certain statement for insults agaist Hinduism, one should consider the intent of that statement. Walking in a temple with shoes would be insulting. But an honest statement of fact about astrology is a very different thing.


I find it saddening that modern Hindus like yourself reject your heritage, in all but words, and prefer to follow scientific rationalism.

By no means do I reject my heritage! On the contrary I value it greatly, and I am thankful that my parents have passed it on to me, as I hope to pass it on as well. But I don't find any value in prevarication. Hinduism is, and always has been, a search for the truth. The fact is that astrology isn't a science. It doesn't yield any testable predictions. Personally I have no problem with the belief that the stars can be used to predict the future (though I don't hold to that belief myself). I do have a problem with the claim that this belief can be scientifically justified, and I thus have a problem with pouring Indian research money into such a fruitless endeavor. Perhaps astrology would be better suited to a religious studies department. But it isn't science.


Which is founded on absolutely no tradition and therefore has no validity as a means of self-progress and development.

Doesn't it? Science may not be founded on any long-time traditions. Indeed the scientific method is only a few hundred years old. But it certainly has resulted in self-progress and development. Science is responsible for our ability to communicate on spiritual matters over long diatances via computers. Science is responsible for medical advancements that prolong human life. And it is responsible for giving us the ability to probe the heavens. I think the scientific method has proven its worth through its contributions to humanity.


In fact the purpose of the 'theory' of scientific rationalism is precisly the opposite to Vedic theory. Vedic theory utilises principles of reality in order for self development, to make a Man a god. Modern science is a theory that reduces man to matter it has no conception in its framework that even considers more subtle substances such as thought or mind. Evolution when seen from a viewpoint that ignores Being and Consciousness becomes purely physical. Cosmology becomes about finding the physical origins of the universe man becomes a machine reliant on technology to furnish him with proofs. He himself becomes the machines he creates distancing himself further and further from the centre of his being, his soul being extracted and sucked into non-being by the inhuman machines he creates.

You are clearly better-versed in the Vedas than I am, though I hope that changes some day as I have more opportunity to study these Scriptures. However, might I suggest that the purview of science isn't the same as that of the Vedas. As the Vedas give us insight into the spiritual realm, science tells us about the physical world. The problem you are describing occurs when people attempt to use science to answer spiritual questions.

And it works in the opposite direction. We cannot use spirituality to answer questions about the physical world, because this must come from observation and experimentation, coupled with logic and reason. We cannot ignore what our senses tell us simply because of some interpretation of a Scripture. We believe the words of Sri Krishna: that God becomes incarnate and comes to this earth from time to time. If our senses couldn't be trusted for some reason, it is not beyond God's power to simply come and tell us. But until that time, I believe it is reasonable to trust what I can observe physically. And my physical observations tell me that there is no scientific justification for astrology. This is why I don't believe that we can call it a science.

For what it's worth, there are a few astrologers in my family who have made some fairly accurate predictions, as well as some who have made some not-so-accurate predictions (so I'm told; I've never actually met these people). So it's not as though I completely discard Jyotish as rubbish. It just doesn't fall into the category of science.

ScottMalaysia
30 March 2010, 02:48 AM
They have and I have just showed you. Turning from one class into another, well that is a different thing entirely. As I said, taxinomical orders are very arbitrary and in "lower life" things are much closer than you think. It isn't as simple as the difference between a bird and a fish. But these things are different species, which is macro-evolution.

They are the same kind of animals. I would have no qualms in saying that the dog, the fox and the wolf had a common ancestor - however, it looked like a dog and would have been recognizable as a wolf. The same goes with the horse, the donkey and the zebra - they had a common ancestor, which looked like a horse. This is not macroevolution. Macroevolution is saying that birds evolved from reptiles. There is no evidence for this. Birds have hollow bones and special lungs which allow a constant flow of air. Reptiles have solid bones. Claiming that birds evolved from reptiles is as much a religious belief as saying that God created birds.


Look, I appreciate that you are trying to fight agains atheism, but evolution is different to cosmology - the origins of the universe, which we cannot with our current technology objectivly observe. Evolution does not mean got didn't create us. God is far more complex than to just blindly create a perfect complex world like christians would have us believe.


If God is all-powerful, why would He use a process of death and suffering to create us? It doesn't make sense.
And you saying that it is like someone denying someone painted the mona lisa shows your ignorance of the theory - evolution is far from the whilwind in a junkyard that some would say it is, creating something complex from nothing.


Also, your faked pictures thing. Fine - people do stuff like that. But if you think evolution can be blown away by something like that, that it is held up by lies and so on, then you are wrong. There is far, far more that faked pictures "proving" evolution. I wasn't even aware of that "proof", anyway.

Textbooks have various "missing links" which are supposed to be creatures in between apes and men. Lucy, homo habilis, homo erectus, Neanderthal man - all these specimens are either fully ape or fully man.


The main ones being:

Fossil record,
Modern genetics and biology.
Observed speciation

try and disprove those if you like.


The "Cambrian Explosion" shows a lot of life-forms appearing suddenly and with no connection to each other during the Cambrian period. This is seen in the fossil record. And as I mentioned, speciation has been observed between the same kinds of animals. Reptiles turning into birds or fish turning into reptiles has never been seen. And if it did happen, then there would be thousands of "missing links" - half-fish, half-reptile or half-reptile, half-bird creatures. There aren't.


No atheist that I ever knew has ever even hinted at what you have just said. I was an atheist once... but no. That is just misrepresentation. Trying to work agains atheism is fine, but please don't dishonour them with misrepresenting thier POV.

My point is that atheists need to explain how the world and humans came to be naturally, without a Creator. Otherwise, if the only way they can explain it is with recourse to a Creator, then their viewpoint is untenable.


I am not going to argue my point any longer. My advice is to read up on the subject, at least allow yourself to challenge the commenly held misconceptions you have about evolution. If you still disagree, then fine. But science will carry on working, providing you with technology and medicine whether or not you agree with it's fundamental theories or not.

Scientific achievement is not at stake. We all understand the great scientific advances that have made our lives easier, and this isn't the issue. This is not science versus religion, this is religion versus religion. Evolution is a religious belief that has not been proven.


Well, the Bible doesn't explicitly say "the earth is 6000 years old" (though I guess at the time it would have said 2500 years). You can get the 6000 year figure by adding the ages of the various people listed in the geneologies, and then use the fact that Abraham is supposed to have lived around 2100 BC (I guess this is an estimate based on cultural clues in the book of Genesis) to get the 6000 year date. This isn't just some date based on the works of Catholic theologians. In fact I think the age of the earth was first computed by an Anglican theologian a few hundred years ago.

The smarter young earth believers - to the extent that such a person can be classified as intelligent - will admit that the geneologies are a bit fuzzy, and can't be used to arrive at an exact date of creation. However, even if one allows for the geneologies to be approximations, a reasonable reading of the Genesis text would suggest that the universe is between 10,000 and 15,000 years old. This is very, very far off the scientifically deduced age of 13.7 billions years, as well as the geologic estimate for the age of the earth as 4.1 billion years.

At least Hindu Scriptures get the age of the universe correct to within an order of magnitude. Granted they don't correctly state the age of the human race, since they suggest that humans have existed for as long as there has been a universe (so I'm told, correct me if I'm wrong). But we don't take our Scriptures literally, so this isn't much of a problem.

There are different views on the age of the earth. Here (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html) is a Catholic site that states that the earth is 6170 years old (the site used to say the earth was 14,000 years old). They state that Creation happened in 4165 BC. The Orthodox Church teaches that the earth was created in 5508 BC and that this year is the year 7518 since Creation.

Yes, Hindus do teach that humans have existed for as long as there has been a universe. There is a book called The Hidden History of the Human Race, written by two Hindus that seeks to prove the opposite position to that of Christian Creationists -that humans have been around for a long time.


'Indian astrology is very popular among Hindus. My mom is quite superstitious in this regard. And about a decade ago, I remember reading that some Indian universities were actually setting up astrology departments. Sometimes I find it discouraging. But Hindus tend to be reasonable, so I'm hoping that this is just a fad.'

Sanjaya I am going to bully you, i hope you do not mind too much. Please tell what what kind of Hindu you are? Rejecting astrology as psuedo-science is insulting. Jyotish is known as the eye of the Veda and has been one of the pillars of Indian civilization for millenia. It is a grand edifice of thought constructed by generations for the benefit of posterity. I find it saddening that modern Hindus like yourself reject your heritage, in all but words, and prefer to follow scientific rationalism. Which is founded on absolutely no tradition and therefore has no validity as a means of self-progress and development. In fact the purpose of the 'theory' of scientific rationalism is precisly the opposite to Vedic theory. Vedic theory utilises principles of reality in order for self development, to make a Man a god. Modern science is a theory that reduces man to matter it has no conception in its framework that even considers more subtle substances such as thought or mind. Evolution when seen from a viewpoint that ignores Being and Consciousness becomes purely physical. Cosmology becomes about finding the physical origins of the universe man becomes a machine reliant on technology to furnish him with proofs. He himself becomes the machines he creates distancing himself further and further from the centre of his being, his soul being extracted and sucked into non-being by the inhuman machines he creates.

With regard to astrology, I say take it with a grain of salt. I don't believe that it is false, yet I have seen no proof that it is true (but I know very little about it). I think that it can be useful, but one shouldn't let one's life be dictated by it. I think that it would be extremely wrong for a person to break up with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend because the astrological compatibility is bad.

wcrow
30 March 2010, 05:24 AM
They are the same kind of animals. I would have no qualms in saying that the dog, the fox and the wolf had a common ancestor - however, it looked like a dog and would have been recognizable as a wolf. The same goes with the horse, the donkey and the zebra - they had a common ancestor, which looked like a horse. This is not macroevolution. Macroevolution is saying that birds evolved from reptiles. There is no evidence for this. Birds have hollow bones and special lungs which allow a constant flow of air. Reptiles have solid bones. Claiming that birds evolved from reptiles is as much a religious belief as saying that God created birds.

No, it is macroevolution. Why do you think, as a non scientist, that you have the right to change the definition of a scientific word? Just because it doesn't look like it is macroevolution to you, doesn't mean it isn't. The fact that you disregard that the horse is related to many other mammals just shows your ignorance. And they don't all look like each other, either.
The hippo is another mammal, for instance, which is related to the whale, which originally evolved in the water.
It doesn't suddenly stop at a common horse anscestor - in fact, the earliest horses come from small pig/dog like things called Hyracotherium, which shows that the horse has an ancestor that came before the equus genus. I.e macroevolution.

All mammals have a common ancestor, which orignally comes from reptiles. All this is proved by the fossil record, including transitional fossils. However, you must remember that not everything shares the same lineage - it didn't go from fish to reptile to bird and mammal, with each thing stopping evolving. These things kept on evolving after they has spawned the next class, which is why modern reptiles don't look like birds, any more than we should look like modern apes. We have both evolved since then. This is why things don't need to look like each other, or even be that genetically close (comparitavly) for them to share an ancestor. you have got to remember that there are different braches, not just one thing evolving into the next - but one comman ancestor evolving into something, then a cousin of that anscestor evolving into something else. Exactly likie cousins, infact. you are related to your cousin, but you cannot say your cousins children have a common ancestor that is you. However, both you and your cousin share an ancestor.
This is perhaps where your confusion comes from. It is hard to exlain without diagrams.


If God is all-powerful, why would He use a process of death and suffering to create us? It doesn't make sense.
And you saying that it is like someone denying someone painted the mona lisa shows your ignorance of the theory - evolution is far from the whilwind in a junkyard that some would say it is, creating something complex from nothing.

Don't ask me that - how am I supposed to know? Surely that is religions job, it find out the "why" from the "how"?
There is much suffering in the world, that boths shapes who we are as a species, and what we do. Why is evolution any different?


Textbooks have various "missing links" which are supposed to be creatures in between apes and men. Lucy, homo habilis, homo erectus, Neanderthal man - all these specimens are either fully ape or fully man.

Look, as I said before, things are not linear. It doesn't just go from ape to erectus, to us. Neadertharl is not our ancestor - bur related to us through another branch, like a cousin. Erectus used tools, and had a social structure similar to ours, and were quite "advanced" for their time. So, no, they are not "fully ape".
Anyway, why rely on textbooks. I presume you are on about highschool ones - well, it is well know that these are riddelled with mistakes and are out of date. If you want real science, rely on peer reviewed journals.


The "Cambrian Explosion" shows a lot of life-forms appearing suddenly and with no connection to each other during the Cambrian period. This is seen in the fossil record. And as I mentioned, speciation has been observed between the same kinds of animals. Reptiles turning into birds or fish turning into reptiles has never been seen. And if it did happen, then there would be thousands of "missing links" - half-fish, half-reptile or half-reptile, half-bird creatures. There aren't.

And that qualifier "kind" is a scientific term is it?

Anyway, as you should know, every fossil is a transitional fossil, between one thing and the next. These things don't just happen with one giant bird/reptile amalgamation crossbreed type thing. If you go looking for that, then you of cource you wont see any transitional fossils.
There are transitional fossils though, Here is a list:

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm



Scientific achievement is not at stake. We all understand the great scientific advances that have made our lives easier, and this isn't the issue. This is not science versus religion, this is religion versus religion. Evolution is a religious belief that has not been proven.


I never said scientific acheivment is at stake. Thats what you seem to think. Until you have a plausable, testable theory that you present to the scientific community when you have the proper qualifications to do so, then, perhaps, things will change, and you will be listened to, and not ridiculed. Until then, evolution will keep on explaining things that help your day to day lives, until a better explanation comes along.

TatTvamAsi
01 April 2010, 11:54 AM
All this talk of evolution and no mention of the DasavatArA of Vishnu? tsk tsk...

The DaSavatAra, although extrapolated, fits in quite nicely with evolutionary biology.

1.) Matsya (fish) - Sea-dwelling creatures
--we know life began in the oceans
2.) Kurma (Tortoise) - amphibious creatures
--we know the first animals to set foot on land were amphibious
3.) Varaha (Boar) - land-dwelling creatures
--next came the land animals
4.) Narasimha - half-man & half-lion --> "more complex land creatures"
--larger creatures that were more evolved
5.) Vamana - dwarf
--initial development of human beings (corroborated by evidence found in Indonesia of "new race" that challenges theory that humans evolved only in Africa and then spread worldwide
6.) ParaSurAmA - hunter/warrior
--Homo sapiens living in forests, caves, and other natural habitats
7.) RAmA - the perfect human being "PURUSHOTTAMA"
--while the rest of the world (read mlecchas) were living in caves, Rama and his kin (Indians) were meditating on the nature of reality and vanquishing scumbags
8.) Krishna - philosopher and "PURNA AVATAR"
--the divine fully manifested in human form
9.) BalarAmA - Extraordinary strength
--represented physical prowess
10.) Kalki - Horseman who slays the mlecchas (:D)
--After the world falls into utter chaos and destruction (thanks to the mlecchas), Kalki will appear to set things straight by vanquishing those responsible (christians/muslims/communists)

And many Hindus adopted Buddha as an incarnation. That view is not held by most darshanas. It is also somewhat of a recent development due to Buddhist influence.

There is also a new theory by a certain Michael Cremo, an ISKCONite, who claims in his book, Forbidden Archeology, that humans have existed for billions of years on this planet!! This was alluded to by Smaranam. The funny thing is, this Kalpa, SvetavarAha, began 7 Manvantaras ago (~1.9 BILLION years). Thus, according to that theory, advanced civilization existed for a very long time and Cremo claims to have evidence for this. A mirrored wall that is more than 300 million years old and pottery that is over a billion years old. I'm not sure why he hasn't come out in full force and stated his theories. Of course, he'd be attacked by the so-called rationalists but controversy in science is always a good thing; in the end, the (half) truth always comes out. Cremo also states that humans have "devolved" from 'spirits' (Atman) and so from advanced civilization we humans have fallen into chaos (Kali Yuga). That part seems like a good conjecture as it is true that due to creation, we go through the loop-de-loop (Atman--jIvA--Atman).

Given the fact that Rama's Bridge was found from Rameswaram to Sri Lanka and is dated approximately 1.7 million years, which corresponds to the Treta Yuga, those claims could actually be true.

More archeological work needs to be done in India, POOPkistan, and its neighboring hell-hole afghanistan.

smaranam
01 April 2010, 12:07 PM
All this talk of evolution and no mention of the DasavatArA of Vishnu? tsk tsk...

The DaSavatAra, although extrapolated, fits in quite nicely with evolutionary biology.



Namaste

I had heard of the DashAvatar-evolution theory, and it did occur to me but hesitated to mention it for some reason. Swami ShivAnand also writes about it.

rainycity
29 May 2010, 10:00 AM
I understand natural selection but there are many other factors such as chemical or radioactive mutation

I don't think you understand natural selection because chemical mutation is a key part of it


Vanakkam Scott:
I believe souls migrated here from another planet,

why?



Darwin and Christian evolution is limited to this planet, and a certain set of time, which doesn't make sense to me. Christians think the whole universe is only 6000 years old for goodness sake.

what is 'christian evolution'?



It seems like every ten years scientists discover new bones that suggest something different happened.

can you be more specific? do you have anything to back up this contention?



advanced interplanetary scientists messing with DNA structure.

What? What on earth are you talking about? There's no reason to believe "advanced interplanetary scientists" have been messing with DNA structure.



There are beings without bodies, beings with light ethereal bodies (think "Close encounters, the movie) beings with denser bodies. Lighter bodies could float as jellyfish in water. (No archeologist is going to dig that up.)

Scientists haven't found any evidence of any of that or their interaction with the process of evolution.



I'm no expert on Darwin to be sure, but certainly I've seen enough to know its not that simple. We humans are a vain bunch to think we are alone, and that this is it.

What does evolution have to do with us being alone "and that this is it"? Scientists have a perfectly good explanation for evolution that doesn't involve aliens at all, and there's no evidence for any spacemen being involved. Come on you're talking a lot of nonsense here, be reasonable.



So basically that is what I meant. Just that its got to be far more complex that Darwin.

Aum Namasivaya

What does this even mean? Many many more scientists have contributed to the theory of evolution then just darwin. How can a school teacher be so ignorant of science?

sanjaya
29 May 2010, 11:44 AM
I don't think you understand natural selection because chemical mutation is a key part of it

It is? My understanding that natural selection was simply a selection of favorable traits via the death of organisms with unfavorable traits, and that mutation was a separate mechanism for evolution which contributed to it alongside natural selection. Granted, my knowledge here is limited to an undergrad biology course and some books I've read on the side, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sahasranama
29 May 2010, 12:41 PM
Mutation is indeed part of it, genes are mostly determened by probability. Unfit means unable to reproduce in darwanian terms, that can be because of biological issues or social issues, like not being able to get a mate.

Eastern Mind
29 May 2010, 05:00 PM
Vannakkam Rainycity:

I honestly don't know how to reply to your questions/arguments.

Where does belief come from? My background is different than yours obviously, but I accept that. We cannot nor should not all believe the same thing.

So back to this question of belief? Once again, this also is just my POV. I don't see why you would get upset over reading a POV.

1) Books - My mother thought that if it was in Reader's Digest it was true.
2) Other people - If someone makes sense or resonates in one area, then it is common to accept that person as one who knows. It may be that you have the feeling 'This makes sense." No, I would say it is more than a feeling.
3) Direct personal experience. This is how children learn hot from cold, and how mystics claim to know about stuff. No one not having the same or similar experiences would ever believe the same thing.
4) Direct cognition, or intuition. Now we're getting personal really. You look up, and you 'feel' a presence or a truth, and it resonates through every cell of your body clearer than any written word ever has.

So my experience has been different than yours. That's about all I can say. I 'believed' in Hinduism before I came to know it as Hinduism because of #s 3 and 4 above.

You have absolutely every right in the world not to believe in anything I say or anyone else says for that matter. I have reiterated that time and again on these forums.

If I say I migrated from another planet, (and I'm not saying this) and I believe it, then that's what it is. My belief. Nothing else, nothing more. If you say you don't believe me, then that's your belief.

Aum Namasivaya

Ramakrishna
03 June 2010, 09:28 PM
All this talk of evolution and no mention of the DasavatArA of Vishnu? tsk tsk...

The DaSavatAra, although extrapolated, fits in quite nicely with evolutionary biology.

1.) Matsya (fish) - Sea-dwelling creatures
--we know life began in the oceans
2.) Kurma (Tortoise) - amphibious creatures
--we know the first animals to set foot on land were amphibious
3.) Varaha (Boar) - land-dwelling creatures
--next came the land animals
4.) Narasimha - half-man & half-lion --> "more complex land creatures"
--larger creatures that were more evolved
5.) Vamana - dwarf
--initial development of human beings (corroborated by evidence found in Indonesia of "new race" that challenges theory that humans evolved only in Africa and then spread worldwide
6.) ParaSurAmA - hunter/warrior
--Homo sapiens living in forests, caves, and other natural habitats
7.) RAmA - the perfect human being "PURUSHOTTAMA"
--while the rest of the world (read mlecchas) were living in caves, Rama and his kin (Indians) were meditating on the nature of reality and vanquishing scumbags
8.) Krishna - philosopher and "PURNA AVATAR"
--the divine fully manifested in human form
9.) BalarAmA - Extraordinary strength
--represented physical prowess
10.) Kalki - Horseman who slays the mlecchas (:D)
--After the world falls into utter chaos and destruction (thanks to the mlecchas), Kalki will appear to set things straight by vanquishing those responsible (christians/muslims/communists)

And many Hindus adopted Buddha as an incarnation. That view is not held by most darshanas. It is also somewhat of a recent development due to Buddhist influence.


I agree, this is some the most convincing "proof" of evolution and how it is supported by Hinduism. The different avatars go exactly in line with evolutionary biology. What do the evolution-deniers have to say about this?

Kumar_Das
08 June 2010, 10:40 AM
All this talk of evolution and no mention of the DasavatArA of Vishnu? tsk tsk...

The DaSavatAra, although extrapolated, fits in quite nicely with evolutionary biology.

1.) Matsya (fish) - Sea-dwelling creatures
--we know life began in the oceans
2.) Kurma (Tortoise) - amphibious creatures
--we know the first animals to set foot on land were amphibious
3.) Varaha (Boar) - land-dwelling creatures
--next came the land animals
4.) Narasimha - half-man & half-lion --> "more complex land creatures"
--larger creatures that were more evolved
5.) Vamana - dwarf
--initial development of human beings (corroborated by evidence found in Indonesia of "new race" that challenges theory that humans evolved only in Africa and then spread worldwide
6.) ParaSurAmA - hunter/warrior
--Homo sapiens living in forests, caves, and other natural habitats
7.) RAmA - the perfect human being "PURUSHOTTAMA"
--while the rest of the world (read mlecchas) were living in caves, Rama and his kin (Indians) were meditating on the nature of reality and vanquishing scumbags
8.) Krishna - philosopher and "PURNA AVATAR"
--the divine fully manifested in human form
9.) BalarAmA - Extraordinary strength
--represented physical prowess
10.) Kalki - Horseman who slays the mlecchas (:D)
--After the world falls into utter chaos and destruction (thanks to the mlecchas), Kalki will appear to set things straight by vanquishing those responsible (christians/muslims/communists)


Sathya Sai Baba is Kalki Avathara!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AefRX0E3oKQ

*correction

Matysa - life spawned in the oceans which evolved to be fully marine creatures

Kurma - transitionary from marine to land as reptile

Vamana - fully land dwelling mammal

geological reference - restoration of earth from ocean

Narasimha - neither beast nor man but an intermediary evolutionary stage

human starts to question the existence of God

Vamana - early hominid /

also if you look at a haplogroup ydna map the ones that we branched from are the BT > CT ydna.

The pygmies of Africa and Andaman islands are small built humans

geological reference - southern India

human starts to question the existence of Heaven

Parasurama - primitive man as hunter-gatherer /

man using metals as weapons for the first time - iron age man

geological reference - south western coast of India

militancy and religion

Rama - ideal man

man of morality

geological reference - sri lanka (interesting to note that sri lanka will become the land of mlecchas/asuras)

man questions morality

Krishna - attractive man / prankster

man of beauty so attractive that everyone are enticed by his charm and follow him

deciever who decieves peoples

God is also responsible for delusion and deception. And God is the best at it.

Transcendant God > Incarnate

Shri Krishna says "I am the Trickster's Hoax"

With Shri Krishna avatara the basis of spirituality is established in Sanathana Dharma

here we see that morality comes BEFORE spirituality

Shri Rama before Shri Krishna

in the West people argue "where do you get your morals from?, wheres your morals? you dont believe in God wheres your morality? you need God for morality"

This duality that man percieves, God as Shri Rama incarnated is the embodiment.

Man can never be perfect. We can say the best out of a group. The best of men. But we cant say a "perfect man". For perfection to arise there must be a creation, a standard of a value that is unrivalled and uncomparable.

So with this frame of duality that man attributes one side to God.

Shri Ram is the "perfect man" because He is God.

This can be percieved from the actions of Shri Ram.

When Ravana sends his rakshasas as spies to the vanara base camps and they try to blend in by pretending to be vanaras, the spies are caught and presented before Rama, Rama instead asked them their mission and sent a vanara to give them a proper tour of the camps to acquire all the information they required. Then he sends them off with a message to deliver that tomorrow he will destroy all of lanka so Ravana better keep all sides of the palace well defended and well prepared with is army.

During the battle when Rama defeated Ravana and had the chance to finish him, He instead praised him for the fight that he had put up and asked him to retire for the day and return tomorrow.

When Lakshamana was about to use the most powerful and destructive weapon Brahmastra against Meghnath, Rama stopped him because he was violating Dharma.

With Shri Krishna the basis of religion is established. The Bhagavad Gita literally "God's words" is the summary of Who God Is, what is the purpose of life, who is the Self and how is the Self to relate to God.

This of course all the useless abrahamic religions can never offer. "one God" but "one God" full of nonsense.:rolleyes:

geological reference - western India

man realizes his own nature, his Self, the nature of God is revealed and the basis of religion is thus established

Buddha / Balarama

Buddha - man trying to percieve his own Self and the universe directly without God

Balarama - man of great strength

Kalki - the slayer of evil

humanity will deteriorate in this age of Kali

Kumar_Das
08 June 2010, 10:43 AM
I agree, this is some the most convincing "proof" of evolution and how it is supported by Hinduism. The different avatars go exactly in line with evolutionary biology. What do the evolution-deniers have to say about this?

lolz yeah better a God who follows through His creation from the start as they evolve as along.

than one that throws a book from the heavens into a desert in the 7th century and forces you to worship him when you are a homo sapien. *cough* Islam *cough*...

boy if Islam is real then its a curse to be born as a human.:rolleyes:

ScottMalaysia
08 June 2010, 08:43 PM
lolz yeah better a God who follows through His creation from the start as they evolve as along.

Why would God use a process of death and suffering to create?

I think that Hinduism would have the least to lose if evolution is proven true. However, I refuse to accept evolution because it is not true. Macroevolution has never been observed and evolutionists have to use examples of microevolution to "prove" it. Mutations, which are supposed to cause evolution, cannot create anything new. A mutant horse might have five legs, because his DNA already has the code for legs. A mutant horse could not have wings, because his DNA has no code for wings. Most mutations are harmful anyway. The supposed "ancestors of man" are either all ape, all human or fake. The drawings that appear in textbooks are pure imagination because there is no way to tell how much hair a person or creature had just from the bones.

I am against evolution and I object to the avatars of Vishnu being used to "prove" it.

TatTvamAsi
08 June 2010, 11:50 PM
Sathya Sai Baba is Kalki Avathara!


No wonder you sent me a PM asking if I "believe" in Sai Baba! :rolleyes:

LMAO.... you believe he is Kalki.. XD lolol...

ScottMalaysia
09 June 2010, 01:27 AM
No wonder you sent me a PM asking if I "believe" in Sai Baba! :rolleyes:

LMAO.... you believe he is Kalki.. XD lolol...

Kalki will not come until the end of the Kali Yuga. Kali Yuga began when Krishna returned to heaven around 5000 years ago, and lasts for 432,000 years. Lord Kalki will come in 427,000 years time, so there is no way that Sathya Sai Baba could be Kalki.

I believe that Sathya Sai Baba is nothing but a magician using magic tricks to "materialise" things. If he does have supernatural powers, then that doesn't mean he is God. Yogis can get supernatural powers through the practice of yoga.

Ramakrishna
09 June 2010, 01:47 AM
Namaste Scott,

I have studied evolution, but not very in-depth. From what I've read and looked at, it is pretty clear that evolution is true. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution in the 19th century, there was serious doubt and objections to it. Today, over a century later, the high majority of scientists accept evolution. However, I don't know enough to get into some sort of point and counterpoint argument.

I do recommend for you to read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Dr. Richard Dawkins. You may know Dr. Dawkins as a highly vocal atheist, but he is also a much renowned scientist, and his book provides a purely secular and scientific argument with plenty of proof for evolution. One of my best friends who is a devout traditional Roman Catholic (you may remember me mentioning him before on these forums) read the book and he is absolutely amazed. He used to be 100% steadfastly opposed to evolution, mainly because of what the Catholic Church has said, but he decided to study evolution and get his own perspective. He is now 100% convinced that evolution is real and he is trying to somehow reconcile his views with those of the Catholic Church. Anyway, just try to read the book sometime. I will read it as well.

Jai Sri Krishna

sambya
09 June 2010, 02:47 AM
And many Hindus adopted Buddha as an incarnation. That view is not held by most darshanas. It is also somewhat of a recent development due to Buddhist influence.

.

namaste tatwamasi . as far as my knwledge goes , the first mention of dashavatara was by jayadeva goswami in his geetagovindam . there he did include in buddha . balarama and krishna are considered non different and 'one' .

atanu
09 June 2010, 05:56 AM
The following is a discussion on the subject giving us the view of Swami Vivekananda



Rambrahma Babu: What is your opinion of the evolution theory of Darwin and the causes he has put forward for it?

Swamiji: Taking for granted that Darwin is right, I cannot yet admit that it is the final conclusion about the causes of evolution.

Rambrahma Babu: Did the ancient scholars of our country discuss this subject?

Swamiji: The subject has been nicely discussed in the Sankhya Philosophy. I am of opinion that the conclusion of the ancient Indian philosophers is the last word on the causes of evolution.

Rambrahma Babu: I shall be glad to hear of it, if it can be explained in a few words.

Swamiji: You are certainly aware of the laws of struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and so forth, which have been held by the Western scholars to be the causes of elevating a lower species to a higher. But none of these has been advocated as the cause of that in the system of Patanjali. Patanjali holds that the transformation of one species into another is effected by the "in-filling of nature." It is not that this is done by the constant struggle against obstacles. In my opinion, struggle and competition sometimes stand in the way of a being's attaining its perfection. If the evolution of an animal is effected by the destruction of a thousand others, then one must confess that this evolution is doing very little good to the world. Taking it for granted that it conduces to physical well-being, we cannot help admitting that it is a serious obstacle to spiritual development.

According to the philosophers of our country, every being is a perfect Soul, and the diversity of evolution and manifestation of nature is simply due to the difference in the degree of manifestation of this Soul. The moment the obstacles to the evolution and manifestation of nature are completely removed, the Soul manifests Itself perfectly. Whatever may happen in the lower strata of nature's evolutions, in the higher strata at any rate, it is not true that it is only by constantly struggling against obstacles that one has to go beyond them. Rather it is observed that there the obstacles give way and a greater manifestation of the Soul takes place through education and culture, through concentration and meditation, and above all through sacrifice.

Therefore, to designate the obstacles not as the effects but as the causes of the Soul-manifestation, and describe them as aiding this wonderful diversity of nature, is not consonant with reason. The attempt to remove evil from the world by killing a thousand evil-doers only adds to the evil in the world. But if the people can be made to desist from evil-doing by means of spiritual instruction, there is no more evil in the world. Now, see how horrible the Western struggle theory becomes!


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 June 2010, 07:11 AM
The following paras offer us further on Vivekananda's views on commonalities between science of evolution and Vedic knowledge. The paras also clarify as to how Vedic Knowledge sees the full elephant rather only the parts -- a problem with both Intelligent Design theorist and Evolutionary theorist.



“No rational man can possibly quarrel with these evolutionists. But we have to learn one thing more. We have to go one step further, and what is that? That every evolution is preceded by an involution. “

The whole of this universe was present in the cosmic fine universe. The little cell which becomes afterwards the man, was simply the involved man and becomes evolved as a man. If this is clear, we have no quarrel with the evolutionists, for we see that if they admit this step, instead of their destroying religion, they will be the greatest supporters of it

Take this whole evolutionary series, from the protoplasm at one end to the perfect man at the other, and this whole series is one life. In the end we find the perfect man, so in the beginning it must have been the same. Therefore, the protoplasm was the involution of the highest intelligence. You may not see it, but that involved intelligence is what is uncoiling itself until it becomes manifested in the most perfect man.

It, therefore, follows absolutely that the perfect man, the free man, the God-man, who has gone beyond the laws of nature, and transcended everything, who has no more to go through this process of evolution, through birth and death, that man called the ‘Christ-man’ by the Christians, the ‘Buddha-man’ by the Buddh- ists, and the ‘Free’ by the Yogis—that perfect man who is at one end of the chain of evolution was involved in the cell of the protoplasm, which is at the other end of the same chain.


Om Namah Shivaya

Ramakrishna
09 June 2010, 07:31 PM
No wonder you sent me a PM asking if I "believe" in Sai Baba! :rolleyes:

LMAO.... you believe he is Kalki.. XD lolol...

Namaste,

Haha! Sai Baba is not Lord Kalki. I really don't know what to think of him, actually. I have heard people call him a huge fraud but there are also people who respect him but don't believe he is God. I guess I fall in the latter. But he is definitely not Lord Kalki! :laugh:

Jai Sri Krishna

akshayp
13 June 2010, 09:13 AM
One of the large-scale units of time in traditional texts is that of the kalpa. Each kalpa is divided into fourteen manvantara-s. The peculiar sequence of the ruler of each such period of time can be inferred to support a theory of evolution of life.

Kumar_Das
13 June 2010, 06:35 PM
No wonder you sent me a PM asking if I "believe" in Sai Baba! :rolleyes:

LMAO.... you believe he is Kalki.. XD lolol...

NO I DONT.:mad:

I was being sarcastic.

Kumar_Das
13 June 2010, 06:37 PM
Namaste,

Haha! Sai Baba is not Lord Kalki. I really don't know what to think of him, actually. I have heard people call him a huge fraud but there are also people who respect him but don't believe he is God. I guess I fall in the latter. But he is definitely not Lord Kalki! :laugh:

Jai Sri Krishna

May "sathya" sai "baba" die a slow painful and humiliating death for insulting my religion.

He claims to be a Godman himself.

Have you not checked his websites out and the quotes he make?

Ramakrishna
13 June 2010, 10:42 PM
May "sathya" sai "baba" die a slow painful and humiliating death for insulting my religion.

He claims to be a Godman himself.

Have you not checked his websites out and the quotes he make?

Namaste Kumar_Das,

Please accept my apologies. I thought you were being serious. I know that he claims to be God and millions of people think so as well. I was under the impression that you were one of those people. Again, please accept my apologies.

Jai Sri Krishna